Yesterday another Steve shared an interesting post on the activity feed, and I think it is one that is worth greater debate over an extended period of time here in the Forum.
The topic is one that considers segregation and integration. Fairness and equality. The need for rules and fulfilling quotas. Ensuring a positive growth and future for naturism while also ensuring that this is something that is valid and welcoming to all.
Firstly we do have some Forum topics that I feel are worth linking to here, and please do consider if some answers should be shared in these instead or as well.
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/176/does-naturism-actually-want-families
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/240/has-naturism-become-too-toxic-for-families
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/216/family-only-events-or-fully-inclusive
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/226/i-am-not-part-of-a-naturist-club-because
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/217/unwelcome-simply-because-you-are-male
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/206/segregation-or-integration
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/218/are-there-times-when-you-enjoy-segregation
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/98/what-core-rules-should-exist-for-naturists-clubs
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/247/does-obsession-with-sexuality-harm-promoting-naturism
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/157/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-of-national-naturist-bodies
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/67/organizing-naturism
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/21/thoughts-on-tattoos-piercings-and-body-jewellery
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/224/clubs-and-venues-closing
https://anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/215/are-non-landed-clubs-a-solution-to-social-naturism
Maybe there are more but you can see that there are quite a lot of topics that touch aspects of what I hope this topic will look at with a wider lens and considering the pros and cons of any level of restrictions that may be needed or when they are not.
I would like to consider both sides of this issue and set the ball rolling for debate.
On one side any segregating is not ideal. Naturism is for all and should welcome all. A single man should not feel rejected purely for being a single man, age should never be an issue, sexual orientation should be irrelevant and a universal approach should be encouraged. One of the things I love about beaches is that there is no bouncer at the gate who says: Sorry too many men now, gay couples only, no tattoos, families aren't welcome or you are simply too old mate!
ANW like a beach is open for all. It doesn't matter to us what colour, age, religion or sexuality you are. There is no concern about disability access. It doesn't matter if you are single, a couple or a family and with levels of membership money is not going to prevent inclusion, and verification is free too. We are lucky there is always room for more, so come on in the water is fine. Though of course we do have some people say; There are too many old folks, there are not enough families, a lot of the activity is from men. Should we place quotas on single males? Perish the thought. If you are a woman or a youngster or a family and you want to encourage more, then get sharing and get inviting others. We are a respectful community and if anyone mistreats you then report them to Anna or myself and we will deal with it, because that is the basis of ANW. Everyone is welcome, everyone can share if they chose and anyone that is not respectful to other individuals, ANW or naturism should not be here. But until they have acted negatively then they should be trusted and welcomed, even if that means 99% of users are single males. It is up to the others to work on balance the single men should not be penalised.
However I do get it. If a family, couple or woman turns up at a beach and finds only men it can be intimidating and even off putting, but it isn't the mens fault, it is all the other women, couples and families that haven't turned up. Work at change and be the minority, and encourage that minority to grow. Isn't that how naturism should work as a minority to dressed people anyway?
However what if you are running a small club, organising an event or promoting a venue?
First it may suit you to want people who you wish to connect with. It may be a little anti-social but you have to have the right to develop something you wish to see develop. A woman may want only other women at her B&B, a gay couple may simply wish to entertain other gay couples at their resort, a family run campsite may only want other families to connect with their children just as an older couple may not want children running around their venue. It isn't how all naturism should be, but there is a place for it. A vegetarian couple would only want to serve vegetarian food at their restaurant, and there is little point inviting teetotallers on a vineyard tour of France.
However, I did say it shouldn't be how all naturism is. What about swim meets, traditional landed clubs and national body events?
Under as many circumstances as possible everyone should be welcome. I recently saw the blurb of a women only swim that said "to encourage inclusivity in naturism" What segregation encourages inclusion? What a lame excuse! I get the angle: by encouraging women to swim in women only swims then maybe they can be induced into becoming naturists and then introduced to swimming with men. It isn't something I feel is fully thought out. Women will simply get used to swimming with women, and it could actually encourage women who have previously been happy to co-exist to look only for single sex options. It encourages the idea that men are not to be trusted and breeds fear and embarrassment.
But if they are going to exist how about family swims or mother and child swims? And if they exist how about single fathers being able to join with their children? How about couples swims, and if they exist what dictates a couple? Could me and a male friend say we are a couple despite being heterosexual? After all a vegetarian restaurant may sell only vegetarian food, but it serves that food to meat eaters if they want it.
I am however not above seeing that there is a need to number crunch. If you have traditionally run a family club and 90% of the members are single males then in all likelihood within a year or two 100% of members will be single males. People wish to join clubs with fellow naturists, but they also wish to join clubs with fellow couples, women, families. That is not hard to understand. If a club has 200 pitches available to members for the future of the club it will wish as many of those pitches to be used by couples and preferably families as possible. Not just to encourage further growth but also for numbers. 200 pitches looked after by single men is 200 members. By couples is 400 members and by families in maybe 800 members. Bringing greater support and variance to the club. Of course they cannot be totally stubborn. Having four families and no-one else because that is all that is interested is certain death to the club! So where is the answer. Maybe a percentage of single membership pitches like 10% is a start. Not kicking people out if they are widowed is certainly the right thing to do. And if you have a single limit make it across the sexes. Why should single women get priority treatment? How about visitors? More leniency and trust is needed. You can still have a set number if need be, but maybe add more flexibility and allow small single male groups to visit to extend the limitations. Why should a gay couple for example get preferential treatment over a couple of men travelling together? After all does it matter if men, women or mixed couples are actually in "relationships?"
How about national body events? Personally I do not think that there should be many, if any need for any segregation in nationally organised events or swims. There may be occasions where a venue refuses children to take part (like a water park). If that is the case the event should simply not be held. If the venue gets its money no matter what then it isn't learning anything. But if we take a stand and say everyone or no one then at least we are presenting naturism as it should be presented and not cowardly backing down and confirming the idea that actually not having families is the best choice, because each time we do it, we make it easier for another venue to do the same, and eventually we will just plan events that are adult based. Organised skinny dips, organised charity events, organised holidays, organised camping will slowly become adult only and there is no good reason other than a lack of commitment and passion for our lifestyle. It should not be tolerated! Through openly promoting naturism as adult only it will become adult only and where does that leave us for our future?
So what should they do about inclusivity? Events should if possible be open to all. If numbers are an issue then you could say that pitches need to be taken by at least two people, allowing single people to at least have the option of finding a friend to travel with.
Should there be exceptions beyond the small private venues and events? Maybe sometimes, but for good reasons and for fairness, and with logic. Is a family event really a family event if most of the people are single young couples, men and women? Some of the behaviour when these youngsters get drunk in the evening is not a good mix with families. Maybe allowing everyone in would have broadened the experience and diluted the behaviour of some of the over emotional drunken guests? But there is no denying that children want to meet and play with other children and it is good to try to offer that as a guarantee for families booking. How about events that are purely for single people, maybe just single men, to give them a feeling of being welcome. But ideally we should want to mix and meet with as broad a range of people as possible. My children love meeting a spectrum of people at naturist events, it is good for them socially and educationally. As long as an event is true to naturism then what is the problem? As long as people who break the expected behaviour protocol are removed then everything should be good.
Yes there are times when maybe things work better with a little segregation. I wouldn't want my children to go to some of the "adult entertainment shows" that count as naturist events, but then I wouldn't want to go either. I am not convinced that that the likes of evening drag acts are suitable to be linked to naturism anyway. First they rely on people dressing up, am I the only person who see this as completely ironic? and second the more we promote naturism as evening entertainment, with night clubs and adult entertainment the more it confuses people as to what naturism really is. It is only one small step of the imagination to link night clubs with promiscuity and adult entertainment with a naked audience as something rather invertedly perverse. Where is the good clean family fun or sports and games in the open air, swimming pools, camping and countryside. Club house parties enjoyed by all ages and shared by people that have been friends for years and welcome guests into the lovely world. Some of the places these night time events take place are well known for drugs and prostitution, violence and drama, and that is in the middle of the day. What are we suggesting by promoting naturism to be connected with such behaviour? The average person is going to think that naturism is a reflection of the location, the entertainment and the behaviour associated with the location. What can nudity mean in a place like this? It is like promoting naturism by suggesting Cap D'Agde is where our future lies and is a shining example of what naturism is all about. So if we are going to have adult only events, if we really must, lets give then a good reason, I cannot think of any good reasons off hand, because even the most cultural and learned of experiences could be wonderful for growing minds. But whatever we chose lets not make it adult because it needs censorship! Because that is a one way ticket to naturism becoming "libertine", the only swinging in naturism should be children in the play areas of family friendly sites.
OK I have shared some thoughts on the pros and cons of segregation and inclusion. I have also considered if there are valid reasons and needs to limit single entry to clubs and events, and look for fulfilling quotas. Take it from here. What do you think are the best answers and solutions and what can we do to make them work and ensure that everyone feels naturism has a welcome mat waiting for them? Have an explore of the links above too, and get debating and discussing and remember even if ANW is the only place on the internet where naturism can Get Real then if we find the answers and give the example, then others may follow.
at November 28, 2024 9:25 PM GMT 
The single men policies are not working and causing more to be disillusioned. “But if it saves just one…” is a poor excuse at a great expense to innocent people. It is guided by emotion rather than reason and numbers of victims rather than rates. “Ok, but I don’t see you proposing ideas to help.” Sure. I’m examining the situation, but sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all, at least until you can figure something better out or more clearly see the issue. If your doctor was prescribing you medicine that created a new set of symptoms/disorders while doing nothing for the original malady, you would either find a lawyer or a new doctor. Or both. But you certainly would not keep taking that medication causing complications. Why do we keep doing the same things and “hoping for the best”?
The biggest concern I’m seeing so far with regard to families is the lack of activities/equipment. This has been discussed in another topic. To echo what has been said there, it is not expensive to cater to the needs of families with kids. I was a counselor for an after-school and summer camp program. It is easy to come up with cheap activities. Kids often use their imagination and come up with new things all the time, which is something we “grow out of” as adults in many cases. Kids love crafts and made-up games. They love songs, even ones made up. You don’t need a lot of equipment. The view of single men or men in general certain doesn't help. I don't appreciate being judged as a creep by people who don't know the first thing about me, or why I may come off the way I do at times. Families may find reluctance to go if there are higher numbers of single males or males in general. Sounds like a "you" problem, not mine. If I do all I can to be transparent and still get looked at with suspicion, we can go our own ways, even if still in each other's presence at a resort and you can still be as vigilant as you want. If I'm there for the right reasons and do nothing wrong, I have nothing to worry about. If I keep my distance from certain people, I also protect myself from any allegations.
National body events are great. I can understand the need for some separation on a smaller scale and on occasion, but we can't make it too much a habit. I don't want to visit echo chambers with forced diversity or exclusion. Men’s groups. Women’s groups. Those focused on families. Whatever. But large events should always be kept free from simply being catered to a specific demographic. People will naturally mix/segregate themselves by choice. Singles will hang with singles and families/couples on their own. Couples will mix with couples/families/singles. The list goes on. They'll be naked and need to look inward to initiate or keep conversations going. Let them decide and socialize as they see fit. Getting everyone involved is the safest bet. Everyone has their own contribution they can make. It will also help quell fears about groups of people. If someone messes up, hold that individual accountable, rather than an entire demographic.
I know that sometimes adults want an environment free of kids, but going 21+ is giving the wrong ideas. There are plenty of spaces at resorts. I don’t know about in the UK, but many here are often several acres in size (even a few hundred). Adults can find their own spaces away from kids and/or at certain times. 21+ for just entering is often seen as “adults only” and alludes to sexual stuff on the entire property, especially when nudity is involved. This will make people think twice about naturism. Those resorts catering to "lifestyle" folks aren't helping. You can't separate nudity from sex (obviously), but you can separate sex from nudity when it comes to naturism. Naturists are not chaste, but there's a time and place. Advertising club-sponsored activities with sexual themes/innuendo give the wrong impressions and attract even more who just want eye candy or sex.
at May 19, 2024 6:58 PM BST
Thanks for sharing Dale. Although I can sympathise for a need to restrict a single group from taking over a membership of a club with limited space the idea that it is done because single men cannot be trusted is totally unacceptable. I have heard from people who have arrived at beaches or naked bike rides and found the demographic too one sided to allow them to wish to strip off, I get that, even though I would personally try to ignore it. One woman or family may encourage another or another. I have been to yoga classes for example and I have been the only bloke there on occasions and you maybe feel a little self conscious but at the end of the day you are their for yoga and not for any other purpose. A good mix is always preferable in life but you have to go with the flow. If a club does need to protect itself from not just being populated by men I can see why there is a need to place limits on membership but that should be across genders and it should never be about allowing men to feel they are not trusted. Everyone should be treated with equal trust until they have behaved in a way that shows otherwise.
A family turning up to a naturist club and finding that all the members are single men may not feel that the men pose a threat but they may feel like there are no children for their offspring to connect with, women may feel the same, a lone woman at a club full of men would surely feel rather isolated? Even if she hopefully didn't feel in danger. Working at quotas is very hard. I think our national body is about 70% men. So to create an event and make it equal means that 40% of the members are being rejected to start with,
Employers get complained about in the UK, and I am sure elsewhere, when they do not have enough black employees, disabled employees etc, but they can only employ the people who approach them for the job. There is a world of difference between employing the best person who turns up or holding out for the hope that you can pander to a need to fulfil a cross section of society. There is also a world of difference between employing the best person for the job and it not mattering if they are a woman or a man, black or white etc than employing the 10th best person simply because of their gender or skin colour. A truly equal world simply doesn't care and employs the person based on qualifications and ability and nothing else.
Yet at the same time I can also see that ideally an average business is going to be better for having a broad spectrum of people, just as an average club is going to feel more of a community if it has a variance of ages and sexes. And it is also going to know that it is more likely to encourage more families if it has some families, and more women if it has some women, and more couples if it has some couples.
I think men suffer partly because their is an attitude of single men not being trustworthy, and that is 100% wrong. I think they also suffer because there is a huge bank of naturist men out there and in an attempt to encourage a broader spectrum it can mean men feel rejected. That is far from ideal, and I think we should want to make men not feel that way, but at the same time want women and families to not feel like an incredibly small minority, which in turn will discourage them and make that minority smaller. But placing limits on men has the knock on effect of making them appear not just unwanted but also not trusted fuelling an idea that is unacceptable. National bodies creating women only events only seems to add fuel to the fire. Encouraging a mistrust to grow and creating a fake naturist environment. It is certainly not ideal on a large scale, and as Dale says large events should be welcoming of everyone. They should be open to the whole community and allow a mix of interactions.
Anywhere that is naturist needs to ensure that it stays clear of sexual themes, that should be part of a universal naturist code, even if it is an adult only event it should still be universal and family friendly in theme when it comes to such behaviour. And "lifestyle" venues (a term I hate because the word lifestyle should be able to be used in its proper context for many ways of living and choosing. But anyway these venues should not be able to use terms like naturism and nudist and their should be a defined dividing line that separates these venues from naturist venues so naturism can be free of confusion in the minds of non-naturists and also so naturists cannot accidentally find themselves somewhere they do not want to be. If we let the edges blur then eventually naturism will be lost as more people back away to protect themselves and others join to want sexual kicks. These adult only events are helping to blur the edges and confuse non-naturists, and even some naturists, a slow (or possibly fast) decline in what we can expect for naturism and our national bodies need to be at the front of stopping this from happening and not encouraging it through bad decisions and tasteless events.
National bodies and event organisers have to remember that they are holding the torch for future generations of naturists it is their duty to keep that torch shining bright so they can pass it on to the next generation of decision makers and organisers, naturism isn't theirs to sell out, they are only taking care of it for a while and they have to be responsible and ensure they make decisions based on being true to naturism and ensuring that naturism has a future long after they have walked away from their positions or ceased profiting from their events. They are Keepers of the Flame and if they don't want that responsibility they should not have asked for it.
I’m actually working on a blog post that looks at rape statistics in the US from 1991 to 2016 (among other things). Let’s be honest here, the main reason is concerning safety. This is quite often cited as a top reason for such quotas. Yes, there is a need for women to be able to interact with more women. They are more like each other than men are to women in several ways. Thought patterns, interests, etc. But, there’s a fear in greater society that has made its way into our community. I’ll just give a taste of what’s found in the blog post coming up. In 2016 the US population was 323,127,513. Males made up just shy of 50% of the population. Let’s just ASSUME here that 100% of the male population were adults capable of rape (adults, no disabilities, etc). That would give us a population of 161,563,756 men in 2016. Again, this is looking at the absolute worst scenario. That year, the FBI reported 50,197 rapists and 46,639 of those were men (92.91%). If there were 46,639 male rapists out of a population of 161,563,756 men, we would have an incident rate of 28.87 rapists out of every 100,000 men. Not even 0.029% of an entire demographic is being used to define and blame 100% of them, and that is frankly insulting and unfair. As stated before, 100% of perpetrators being men doesn't mean 100% of men are perpetrators. Even those statistics back this up.
There are so many complaining in the US about diversity. There are even affirmative action programs where people get hired based on demographics alone, before people with more qualifications. That worries some because I'd rather my doctor be more qualified than simply hired for being gay, POC, or whatever. Forced diversity isn't doing us any favours. It creates resentment and concerns of qualifications. There are even some states throwing out graduation requirements such as math and reading standards due to lower rates of literacy in demographics. This is not good in the long run, for any/all of us here in the US. I look at the male quotas the same way, but I'll cover that further in what I'm working on.
We look forward to it Dale. I agree with your thoughts and believe whole heartedly that the idea that men are restricted due to trust is totally unacceptable, just as it would be if any part of society was victimised because of a small percentage of danger. Women and couples are capable of shocking, disturbing and disgraceful behaviour too. This sort of attitude towards men has to stop, it damages naturism. If someone was to suggest that any other group of society should be treated this way the sky would fall in.
